25 June 2012 11:07 AM

Twitter is an Electronic Left-Wing Mob

After a long broadcasting famine, I have spent much of the past ten days preparing for, travelling to and appearing on BBC discussion programmes. (Question Time on 14th June, Daily Politics and Any Questions on 22nd June, Sunday Morning Live’ on 24th June). I promise you all this a coincidence, not a conspiracy. I wish it was a conspiracy. But it must have been a nightmare for my many detractors. In fact I know that it was, thanks to the curious thing known as Twitter.

I don’t really see the point of Twitter myself. Brevity is a discipline, but the space on a Twitter message, fewer than 30 words, isn’t enough to do anything more than a sound bite. As I prefer to follow facts and logic to their conclusion, it doesn’t appeal to me. I don’t at the moment think I shall start posting on Twitter. Apart from anything else, there’s always the risk of meeting Stephen Fry.

But I have learned how to keep an eye on what is said about me there. Imagine some of the dimmer, more abusive and in many cases anonymous attacks on me here, only briefer and in many cases with the worst four-letter words in the language included, and you have the picture. There are, it’s true, a few brave contributors who defend me, and I have been rather impressed by the thoughtful open-mindedness of Dr Evan Harris, of all people

A nice person, with the best of motives, told me after one of my appearances that I was ‘trending on Twitter’ as a result. This is a jargon term meaning that something I’ve said has attracted a lot of attention among Twitter subscribers. I told her ‘No doubt. But not in a good way’. And so it proved, when I later got to a computer screen (I am not one of these people who is joined at the hip to the Internet. I believe man should control technology, not the other way round).

As it happened, this very subject, of Twitter, came up for discussion on the ‘Daily Politics’. This is an interesting programme, presented by Andrew Neil, on which I appeared last Friday. Mr Neil’s great broadcasting talents are , in my view, wasted by the BBC. His problem is a much larger version of mine. We are both, in our different ways ‘right-wing’. And we both have some broadcasting ability, so we are allowed on. But we get quite different treatment from our leftish, liberal equivalents. I’ve been told by a very senior BBC bureaucrat that I will never be allowed to present a programme on BBC Radio - which I feel I would do at least as well as some of the current presenters. She didn’t feel the need to explain, and I didn’t feel the need to ask her to. And they can’t seem to bring themselves to give Mr Neil the presenter’s chair of any prime-time or flagship radio or TV programme, though (and I have many disagreements with Mr Neil) he would obviously be very good at it. So he limits himself to being the very good presenter of off-peak shows.

Anyway, there we were discussing Twitter and social media on ‘The Daily Politics’ on Friday, and I said that Twitter was ’an electronic Left-wing mob’. Among those present was Mary Ann Sieghart, a person prominent in the world of comment. I must confess to not having a soft spot for her, especially after a radio debate we once did on cannabis, during which I came very close (during the encounter and in the shared car afterwards) to actually grinding my teeth at her obdurate, irresponsible refusal to recognise the terrible dangers of this drug to the vulnerable young. I also suffered a bout of near-nausea when she once brought one of her (then very young) children to a Blair press conference during the 1997 election. But she is not always so infuriating. As she rightly points out, she opposed the Euro, and she has recently said some perfectly sensible things about schools.

A couple of days later, I was scanning the latest crop of personal abuse on Twitter, and found that Mrs Sieghart had tweeted, to the effect that I had said that Twitter was a left-wing conspiracy.

Now, readers here will know that I think (Think? I know. I’ve done it and seen it done) that individuals do secretly combine in our society to secure political and social change, and indeed other things. It’s generally called ‘lunch’ and s even more potent when it’s called ‘dinner’ or ‘kitchen supper’ . And some things just cannot be explained by coincidence. But to describe someone as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ is not, in general meant as a compliment, and to say that someone thinks something is a conspiracy is generally to suggest that the person involved is a little obsessive, and unhinged, to be regarded as a pathological problem and in general dismissed.

I don’t believe Twitter is a left-wing conspiracy, either in the caricature sense intended by Mrs Sieghart, or in the sense that I think people combine secretly on Twitter to achieve a purpose. Why on earth would you do that? More importantly, I haven’t said so, and in fact said something plainly quite different and demonstrably true. What’s more, I said it on a recorded TV programme, where my words can be checked.

Anyway, I contacted Mrs Sieghart via her website , and pointed out that what she had said was incorrect. She e-mailed back to say she had corrected it. I checked to see what she had done, and this is what I found: ‘ Oh! Peter Hitchens has corrected me. Apparently you're not a left-wing conspiracy but a left-wing electronic mob. Silly me.'

Well, I’ve now written to her again, pointing out that, as a journalist, she really ought to know that it’s a basic part of the craft that you quote people accurately.

I then wrote (I have left out one or two rebukes that are better left private): ’ I politely corrected you in a private communication. You then managed to 'correct' your error in front of your fans grudgingly (You say 'apparently'? What do you mean 'apparently'? Do you seriously dispute it? You can check the record through I-player, and I'm sure the daily Politics people will provide you with a recording if that's not available. That's what I said, that Twitter is a left-wing electronic mob. What you wrote was not what I said... You also do so without any sign of regret … let alone contrition (at having published a misleading statement about a another person) , nor (of course) any apology to me, while suggesting ('silly me' is seldom used without sarcasm) that it's rather tiresome of me to object when the great Mary Ann tells untruths about me. ‘

Yes, Twitter is an electronic left-wing mob.

I’ll return later today with some other comments of pressing matters, and responses to your views.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It's nice that Mr Edward Miliband has graciously granted permission for the British population to talk about mass immigration yet for the last 40 years the labour party has smeared anybody who has with the mantra '' racist, bigot , nazi.''

This news hasn't filtered down to the local labour apparatchiks yet, Welsh labour MP Owen Smith constantly interrupted, interrupted, interrupted and shouted down Peter Hitchens when he was on Any Questions .saying Nethergate was a '' complete fantasy.''

The Left doesn't want the Right wing to speak while the Right does want the Left to speak, so that they will hang themselves by their very own words.

Labour spin doctor Andrew Nether said '' mass immigration was a deliberate plan to altar the demographics of the country and to rub the noses of the Right in diversity.''

Labour Lord Glassman said

'' Now obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely. In many ways [ Labour ] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress.

‘Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters... were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary.''

Peter Sutherland in charge of immigration at the UN has come out this week and said

'' The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration.''

''Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.''

( Strange how Britain created the British Empire without being multicultural and how did Europe survive for 2000 years without being '' diverse and vibrant '' ? )

''He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law. ''

Nothing happens in this world by accident, mass immigration was intentional as East German marxist Bertolt Brecht said '' If the people vote the wrong way, change the people.'' Labour has done this for their own political advantage. It was a very nasty, you could even say diabolical plan.

One reason Twitter is more suitable for a left-wing audience is that their views are often little more than slogans suitable for bumper stickers whereas right-wing views are generally more complicated as they are grounded in the complex realities of life. The other is that the raison d'etre for many left wingers is to feel good about their views and they get this reassurance by being part of a crowd.

"There are environments in which it is deeply unfashionable to voice a opinion which has traces of conservatism - rock music, for instance... ....For your average Joe Bloggs, I would add that Twitter is one of those environments."

I think that DM has nailed it with this statement. To be perfectly honest I hide behind a daft name principally because of the possible effect (sorry impact) on employment. However there is also the feeling of social stigma that can come from being openly conservative. I believe this is why Peter Hitchens is correct in not attempting to soften his approach. The smug self satisfied Left and meek apologists for the Right are both part of this problem, I also know that actions like mine are part of the cause. But experience tells me I'm not alone.

I find politics on an evening out is a taboo but in certain environments assume that "left" is the default position. The odd thing is that once someone dare be an icebreaker and opine anything conservative, it's satisfying to watch the general agreement.

But in an internet environment with your own name behind it, I'd be apprehensive to stray from banality. I reluctantly use facebook and twitter for commercial purposes, though as little as possible. I dearly hope social media is a passing fad that will pass by unreplaced. Similar to ebay that has changed from being an online car boot sale to just an other comercial market place.

I have never used Twitter. I have tried FB but found it somewhat childish with its' rather silly games which I won't use my limited spare time on.
If Twitter is more left than right, could it be that most 'right minded' people are busy working whilst many students ( mostly lefties till they grow up ) and welfare dependant labour voters have ample time to, well...twitter?

Janet D
People like T Twizzler believe we have a nasty right wing Tory government ( and yes many ignore the libdem bit for ideological reasons ) they believe the indigenous population is racist, sexist, homophobic ( whatever that is ) Islamophobic ( whatever that is ), they believe that the tories are slashing welfare and the public sector costs with the inefitable result of people soon to be seen dying on the streets of starvation. They believe we are Imperialistic, they believe the working masses are slave labour to the capitalists (yawn) still. They believe supporting the Monarchy is zenophobic and 'little Englander like' ( whatever that is).
I won't even go into the hundreds of claims of 'Yuman rights' these people prattle on about on a monotonous basis. It's a catch all phrase for what is really a discontent at the law of the land.
I could go on. but as you can see we live in a society run by rancid ( according to J O'Brien of LBC ) rightwingers. The poor old left really are nowhere!

Turkey Twizzler said: 'Could it be that .... this nostalgic conservatism just does not appeal to all but a small number of Mail readers?'

You may very well be right, Mr (or Ms) Twizzler. (Or do you prefer the more informal address of 'Turkey'?) But if so, why do you, Mick and others waste so much time posting provocative messages on a blog that you should (logically) ignore as the haunt of a few irrelevant old conservative dinosaurs?

You contradict yourself. You imply that it is representative and cross section, though giving no reason for us to think so, and yet claim you aren't saying this. You consistently conflate what is representative with what is simply a significant minority.

Social conservatives aren't all traditionalist and conservative Christians. There are many, if often reflexive, and, many times, not properly Christian, social conservatives who are nervous about too much sexual license, too much vulgarity in our culture, are concerned about immigration, have a negative opinion of much welfare, aren't that thrilled by the latest electronic gadgets and so forth. Yes, it is growing harder for such habitual sentiments to survive in any confident and full way in our society, some will even be apologetic for holding some of these views and many more will not consistently hold social conservative opinions in all areas, without more ideological and developed foundations. However, it is still the case that far from all who hold social conservative opinions are conservative Christian or out and out traditionalists.

Twitter to me seems like a vulgar mix of celebrity worship and bullying. I suppose most 'liberal' people are good at that, although they pretend not to be in the same way they are all for 'free speech' as long as it suits their agenda.

Mick tells us that there are 10 million registered users on Twitter. I think most would agree that not all 10 million use it for political purposes. The company I work for uses it for professional purposes, as did the company for whom I worked before. Sportsmen and women use it, as do musicians, actors, lawyers, sales types, entrepeneurs, charities, estate agents, engineers, anyone you care to mention! What's more, when people like Peter Hitchens 'trend', I very much doubt that 10 million people are tweeting about him. It would be very interesting to find out on average how many people are tweeting in such circumstances. I suspect it's comparatively a much, much smaller number but I don't know exactly. What I'm trying to say is that I'm still highly unconvinced that political discussion on Twitter represents public opinion, and in many cases it entails sheep-like political correctness for obvious reasons.

Mick is right to say that many in the country aren't "religious conservatives" like Hitchens. Many others, though, still share at least some of his views. I'm not at all religious, but I agree with Hitchens on quite a lot of things, like schools and welfare (is the country as a whole that vehemently against grammar schools and expansive welfare?). I could equally say that many in the country aren't "religious progressives" like Mehdi Hasan (I'm not sure if he calls himself a 'progressive' or a 'socialist' or a 'liberal', but you get what I mean). Still, I would be interested to see if he has attracted the same vehemence that Hitchens has on Twitter. I don't deny that opinionated leftists get personal abuse on Twitter (I've seen it), I just doubt they get anywhere near as much as Hitchens, Phillips, David Starkey etc. Galloway might be an exception - though I'm not even convinced he is - but he's associated himself with many a mass murderer which doesn't help.

There are environments in which it is deeply unfashionable to voice a opinion which has traces of conservatism - rock music, for instance. When Neil Young in the 1980s 'came out' as a Reagan supporter, he was met with scorn by the rock industry (in his own words they went "beserk") and advised by his management to stop. For your average Joe Bloggs, I would add that Twitter is one of those environments.

A distinctly accurate label for Twitter (and indeed much of the internet, which is dominated by Porn, The "Far" Right and the Progressives.....having very little, by its nature, of the genuinely conservative).

Hello John
Last one from me on this. At no point did I say Twitter was representative or 'the community' - I just find it amusing how desperate social conservatives are to paint it as completely unrepresentative and how many incorrect assumptions they've made about the user demographic.

There is a wide cross section of opinion on Twitter - plenty of economic conservatism for instance. Just not so many churchy, traditional conservatives. It's part of a bigger picture and a wider pattern as Mr Twizzler points out.

The statistics are industry stats, used by (non-leftie) advertisers and marketers and were widely reported a month or so ago in the Mail, Guardian, Telegraph and the online industry. They're not some sort of 'left wing stats' I'm afraid. The Mail as a news organisation has no problem accepting this stuff and (unlike me) is very active on Twitter.

The message is in the medium as Marshall Mcluhan said. Twitter is a medium that does not allow ideas to be developed, facts to be cross referenced and challenged and anonymity can be retained thus avoiding censure; it is therefore bound to encourage emotive rather than considered comments, slogans to rally those who agree with a given set of opinions rather than cause them to challenge their own thinking and bad behaviour. Peter Hitchens is right to ignore it. Whenever someone tells me they tweet, I look at them with disappointment, realising that they’re not as intelligent as I thought they were.

The political bias of Twitter has been little investigated. I read a report somewhere that 70% of tweets during the AV referendum were supportive of the idea (so clearly out of kilter with the general view) but can’t find a reference for this.

No one has commented on how Mary Ann Sieghart has behaved like her fictional alter ego in Private Eye, Mary Ann Bighead. Which of her daughters did she bring to the New Labour press conference, Brainella or Intelligentia?

When you turn on the TV, you see ‘they’ control the broadcast media (despite the fact that you often appear on it). You go to the bookshop and you are disappointed with the selection, apparently it’s biased against people like you. You go to university, and most people there – staff and students – disagree with your take on it all. You look at the political parties that get voted in to power – the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dem, and complain that they’re all too left wing.

Now you log on to social networking and find out you and your ideas are unpopular there too.

Could it be that the majority of people are “left wing” when compared to someone like Peter Hitchens, and that this nostalgic conservatism just does not appeal to all but a small number of Mail readers?

I'm not sure you understand what representative means. It means a cross section of views, interests, associations and that sort of thing. This is what is necessary for something to be representative or to be 'the community', not that it has ten million users, if those users are not such a representational cross section.

I have not dismissed twitter users as a completely insignificant demographic, simply as not representative and certainly not to be blithely referred to as 'the community'.

You haven't told us where you get these stats from, but even they show 75% of these users, at least, are under 40. It is also important how many there are in the general population who are over 40, so we can get an idea of the percentages of them that use twitter.

Peter, it is interesting to read what you have to say about twitter. I have never considered the platform from this point of view. You say that you life to follow facts to their logical conclusion. Whilst I understand that you are a journalist and so perhaps interpreting scientific evidence might not be your strong point. I have to disagree, therefore, with your statement as you rarely use evidence, facts or logic in your anti cannabis articles. I wonder if you could read a bit more genuine scientific evidence on this substance before continuing to spread misinformation to such a wide audience. I would suggest that voicing ideological disagreements with cannabis is an abuse of your power as a journalist. Please do research this topic more thoroughly in future.

Peter J Hunt: Having just read you're post, it occured to me that even though the argument you make supporting Twitter is a rather brief one, even it would be too long for the very thing you support.

Furthermore, as many people keep pointing out, PH's view may not be very popular: held by the vast majority. If this is true, how are his arguments meant to be laid out in brief? Popular arguments can be made in a few words; they are already held by many and they have some understanding of what is left unsaid. In PH's case for example, it takes time to understand his views on what truely constitutes being conservative. How on earth could he make a complicated argument in the space provided! By definition, a forum that limits an argument to a sound bite is going to be fine for popular consensus - charity good, spending on hospitals good, schools good, nasty things bad - but absolute pants for anything else.

Because it must be completly different in London and the South-East because up here amongst the many people my job brings me into contact with people just aren't interested.

I'd imagine amongst a certain type of middle class 18-25 year olds it is slightly more popular. But even amongst them those figures probably include vast amounts of people who are registered on it but have either never used it or maybe once or twice when they first got on it.

Facebook only has 25% of 18-34s regularly using their accounts so you can imagine Twitter's "real" figures for users. Probably around 5% of the population as a whole. And I think its safe to say most in that student/young graduate Guardian reading demographic.

It's not a conspiracy, it's not a matter of demographic, it's a matter of the vast majority calling for an end to the draconian nonsense that has been perpetuated by the overpaid and out of touch people propped up high enough for their voices to be heard.
Considering twitter's gigantic user base in the UK, it's far more representative of opinion than fudged polls. If this bothers you, then you shouldn't be in politics if representing the majority troubles you.
Entertaining the idea that it was just a left wing mob, like it or not, it's the next generation of adults. This demographic's opinion on cannabis for example is backed up by facts, and yours is backed by political rhetoric.
The next time you slam cannabis use, I want to see you actually cite studies that represent the substance as something worse than alcohol. You'll struggle, because there aren't any.

How delicious. Peter Hitchens kept popping up on my BBC TV screen over the last few days. I couldn't believe my luck. Especially as he has long bemoaned the fact that he is almost person non grata at the BBC. Looks like the tide is turning - long may it continue. Hoorah!

Peter
You have more supporters than you might imagine. I read your column every week in the MOS and make an extra effort to watch the likes of Question Time when you appear.

Your views are held by many - but I do fear we are dwindling in number. Like the Chelsea Pensioners, with the passage of time our numbers decline year on year. And with them decency, honour, manners and respect.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.